32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[Redfish]

"Marriage is a fundamental right"

It's just a tag, a continuance of the natural order of procreation and nature. Queers can't procreate, therefore their trying to equate themselves with pairings that do, is sick, it's mental illness. "Marriage" transcends vapid human attempts at definition. We were just discussing barn owl "divorce" at Natgeo awhile back. Barn owls mate for life, as do ravens, crows, jays, coyotes, and a thousand other species of bird and mammal. One male and one female mate for life. It's the natural order of things.

Queers want us to believe that they're the natural order of things. They want to browbeat society into being as mentally ill as they are. Mostly though, they want to get their hands on little kids. That's how sick and dangerous the "queer marriage" agenda is. Queers want the great responsibility of raising and nurturing children? What a sick joke. There's only one reason a queer wants to get a little boy under his roof.

Animals in same sex pairings do mate for life and homosexuality has been found in over 1,500 species, including humans.

Again, gays want to be and ARE parents for all the same reasons heterosexuals want to be parents. Our kids are at no disadvantage to yours and even do better in some areas...like tolerance.

Gay monkeys cannot create little monkeys. Gay giraffes cannot create little giraffes. Gay humans cannot create human children. You can adopt or use a sperm donor, but those children are not the genetic offspring of two gay men or two gay women.

Children raised by same sex "parents" are at a huge disadvantage. They either have no male influence or no female influence (remember when you told us that there is no such thing as a butch and a fem in a lesbian couple?). They, and the school mates, know that their parents are not normal. Its a huge burden for them to be saddled with----------------and you know it.

 

[Redfish]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

Do you think there should be a referendum on whether to keep the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment? How do you think that will go? I'd say most people would be in favor of it.

that has nothing to do with this topic.

It has as much to do with this topic as what you said.

You want a referendum on whether to have gay marriage or not. I'd say this is allowing a referendum to take people's rights away.

So let's make it a lot simpler for people to understand. We either have a referendum to take all constitutional protections for rights away, or we keep rights, embrace rights and stop trying to treat people as second class citizens because you have a problem with other people having rights.

How would you vote? Yes or no?

when you understand the issue, maybe we can talk, until then you are just looking foolish.

I don't understand the issue, or I'm saying something that you can't comprehend??? Hmmm.

Seriously, have you read the 14th Amendment at all?

Yes, can you please quote the language from the 14th where the words "gay marriage" appear?

we'll be waiting---------------------------------------and waiting-------------------------------and waiting

Right here:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Hmmmm, I don't see the words "gay marriage" Could you highlight them for us?

Gays do not need the word 'marriage' in order to have equal protection of the laws. Note the word "protection". How would a gay marriage provide more protection than a civil union?

 

[Redfish]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

Do you think there should be a referendum on whether to keep the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment? How do you think that will go? I'd say most people would be in favor of it.

that has nothing to do with this topic.

It has as much to do with this topic as what you said.

You want a referendum on whether to have gay marriage or not. I'd say this is allowing a referendum to take people's rights away.

So let's make it a lot simpler for people to understand. We either have a referendum to take all constitutional protections for rights away, or we keep rights, embrace rights and stop trying to treat people as second class citizens because you have a problem with other people having rights.

How would you vote? Yes or no?

when you understand the issue, maybe we can talk, until then you are just looking foolish.

I don't understand the issue, or I'm saying something that you can't comprehend??? Hmmm.

Seriously, have you read the 14th Amendment at all?

respond to my post #332, or STFU.

Well, aren't you Billy Badass.

Only if pushed. Since frigid ran away rather than answer, would you care to?

 

[Redfish]

Even if all benefits could be equal by calling same-sex marriages something else, Why have two separate licenses that confer the exact same benefits? The separate license for same-sex couples would be totally redundant. There would be no reason to do so other than to disparage and discriminate against gay individuals.

Exactly. Why would we bother if the unions are identical? Why create a second class that is identical in every way to the first? What's the point? Why not just recognize the marriages of gays and lesbians as valid?

You've said yourself that gays and lesbians don't want equal rights but social acceptance. Would access to marriage provide them with social acceptance that access to civil unions wouldn't? If so, why?

I said 'societal' acceptance, not 'social' acceptance. its not the same thing.

 

[Redfish]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

No more than blacks who wanted to marry whites would have accepted a vote on THEIR civil rights. I don't believe we should get to vote on civil rights...with good reason.

Not the same thing no matter how many times you try it. you can get the equality that you seek, and that I want for you, without the word 'marriage'.

You insist on calling a gay union a marriage because you want society to accept homosexuality as a normal human condition.

Why can't you admit that?

If same-sex marriages are not called marriages, they will not get the federal benefits of marriage. The equality sought can thus not be received.

Even if all benefits could be equal by calling same-sex marriages something else, Why have two separate licenses that confer the exact same benefits? The separate license for same-sex couples would be totally redundant. There would be no reason to do so other than to disparage and discriminate against gay individuals.

They should get those benefits. I want them to have those benefits. They do not need to call their union a marriage in order to achieve equal benefits.

Since the beginning of time, in all religions, and all civilizations, a marriage is one man and one woman. That is established by human history.

 

[Skylar]

Since there is no federal law on this topic, your post just verifies your ignorance.

Are you saying Windsor v. the US hasn't been brought up by your ilk? You may want to check again. And tell us, is the Windsor case brought up by gay marriage opponents a challenge to State or Federal law?

You don't have a clue, do you?

 

[Skylar]

A state has a right to promote natural parents over artificial ones. Marriage is the majority's perogative to define in order to sculpt future generations as the majority wishes its discreet community to be. That's called democracy. If you don't like it, move to Red China and convince leadership there to make homosexuality mandatory in their culture. They'd probably welcome it since they are overpopulated anyway.

Once again, marriage doesn't require procreation to be valid. No state requires that those in a marriage to procreate or are able to. You're once again demanding that we reject gays from marriage for their failure to meet a standard that no one is held to.

That's ridiculous. If the standard doesn't apply to heterosexual couples, why then would you apply it gays?. And then exclusively? That's an obtuse equal protection violation. As the standard either applies to all marriages or none. And right now, its none. Eliminating as a standard you can apply to gays.

And so much for your claims that gay marriage is illegal in California. The moment I ask you to show us the parts of the Windsor decision that indicates gay marriage is constitutional, mentions prop 8 or mentions California....

.......you abandon your entire pseudo-legal argument.

How did I know that was coming?

 

[Redfish]

Since there is no federal law on this topic, your post just verifies your ignorance.

Are you saying Windsor v. the US hasn't been brought up by your ilk? You may want to check again. And tell us, is the Windsor case brought up by gay marriage opponents a challenge to State or Federal law?

You don't have a clue, do you?

Yes, I have lots of clues. I am not part of an "ilk". I speak only for myself. The opinions I express are mine and if they agree or disagree with those of any "ilk" its of no consequence to me.

See, thats the thing. You on the left demand that everyone change their beliefs to match yours-----------because in your tiny minds you think that you are always right and your views are superior-----------------------------------------------------------my only comment to you on that is -------------- go fuck yourself.

and when you finish that, go read Atlas Shrugged and 1984. Those works of fiction are coming true in the USA today.

 

[dcraelin]

 

[Skylar]

Even if all benefits could be equal by calling same-sex marriages something else, Why have two separate licenses that confer the exact same benefits? The separate license for same-sex couples would be totally redundant. There would be no reason to do so other than to disparage and discriminate against gay individuals.

Exactly. Why would we bother if the unions are identical? Why create a second class that is identical in every way to the first? What's the point? Why not just recognize the marriages of gays and lesbians as valid?

You've said yourself that gays and lesbians don't want equal rights but social acceptance. Would access to marriage provide them with social acceptance that access to civil unions wouldn't? If so, why?

I said 'societal' acceptance, not 'social' acceptance. its not the same thing.

Huh. Not even an attempt to answer the question. You know you've only delayed the inevitable. Lets try again:

You've said yourself that gays and lesbians don't want equal rights but 'societal' acceptance. Would access to marriage provide them with societal acceptance that access to civil unions wouldn't? If so, why?

And of course, you've still never given us a single reason to bother with civil unions when marriage works just as well, is far simpler, and doesn't require your historically inept 'separate but equal' scheme. Care to take a shot now?

Why would we bother with the distinction between civil unions and marriage if they are identical?

 

[Skylar]

Since there is no federal law on this topic, your post just verifies your ignorance.

Are you saying Windsor v. the US hasn't been brought up by your ilk? You may want to check again. And tell us, is the Windsor case brought up by gay marriage opponents a challenge to State or Federal law?

You don't have a clue, do you?

Yes, I have lots of clues. I am not part of an "ilk". I speak only for myself. The opinions I express are mine and if they agree or disagree with those of any "ilk" its of no consequence to me.

They are if you're talking about issues that have been raised in this thread. And Windsor V. US most definitely has.

Check the thread again, then comment. Doing it the other way around will lead you to more embarrassing blunders like the one you just made. You may also want to educate yourself on the Windsor decision. Its likely going to come up again.

See, thats the thing. You on the left demand that everyone change their beliefs to match yours-----------because in your tiny minds you think that you are always right and your views are superior-----------------------------------------------------------my only comment to you on that is -------------- go fuck yourself.

I'm demanding what the constitution demands: equal protection under the law. You can believe whatever you want. But if you want to strip gays and lesbians of a fundamental right, you're going to need a good reason. And that you 'believe' they shouldn't be able to marry, or it doesn't match the plot to 'Atlas Shrugged' is not good enough.

You still can't give us a good reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.

You think that might be a 'clue'?

 

[Redfish]

Even if all benefits could be equal by calling same-sex marriages something else, Why have two separate licenses that confer the exact same benefits? The separate license for same-sex couples would be totally redundant. There would be no reason to do so other than to disparage and discriminate against gay individuals.

Exactly. Why would we bother if the unions are identical? Why create a second class that is identical in every way to the first? What's the point? Why not just recognize the marriages of gays and lesbians as valid?

You've said yourself that gays and lesbians don't want equal rights but social acceptance. Would access to marriage provide them with social acceptance that access to civil unions wouldn't? If so, why?

I said 'societal' acceptance, not 'social' acceptance. its not the same thing.

Huh. Not even an attempt to answer the question. You know you've only delayed the inevitable. Lets try again:

You've said yourself that gays and lesbians don't want equal rights but 'societal' acceptance. Would access to marriage provide them with societal acceptance that access to civil unions wouldn't? If so, why?

And of course, you've still never given us a single reason to bother with civil unions when marriage works just as well, is far simpler, and doesn't require your historically inept 'separate but equal' scheme. Care to take a shot now?

Why would we bother with the distinction between civil unions and marriage if they are identical?

I have explained it in detail numerous times. If you are too thick headed to comprehend, then there is nothing I can do for you.

But to recap:

Marriage = a union of one man and one woman

civil union = a union of two men or two women

Rights = exactly the same for both. EXACTLY THE SAME.

Now, for you. Why does the word matter so much to you? Here's your answer, government mandated societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.

 

[Skylar]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

No more than blacks who wanted to marry whites would have accepted a vote on THEIR civil rights. I don't believe we should get to vote on civil rights...with good reason.

Not the same thing no matter how many times you try it. you can get the equality that you seek, and that I want for you, without the word 'marriage'.

You insist on calling a gay union a marriage because you want society to accept homosexuality as a normal human condition.

Why can't you admit that?

If same-sex marriages are not called marriages, they will not get the federal benefits of marriage. The equality sought can thus not be received.

Even if all benefits could be equal by calling same-sex marriages something else, Why have two separate licenses that confer the exact same benefits? The separate license for same-sex couples would be totally redundant. There would be no reason to do so other than to disparage and discriminate against gay individuals.

They should get those benefits. I want them to have those benefits. They do not need to call their union a marriage in order to achieve equal benefits.

Since the beginning of time, in all religions, and all civilizations, a marriage is one man and one woman. That is established by human history.

If a civil union is identical to marriage in every way, why bother? Why not just call it 'marriage'? Again, 'separate but equal' has an abysmal historic pedigree. Simply recognizing the marriages of gays as valid is simpler, just as effective, and doesn't require we pointlessly resurrect failed logic dreamed up in the segregationist era.

 

[Skylar]

Even if all benefits could be equal by calling same-sex marriages something else, Why have two separate licenses that confer the exact same benefits? The separate license for same-sex couples would be totally redundant. There would be no reason to do so other than to disparage and discriminate against gay individuals.

Exactly. Why would we bother if the unions are identical? Why create a second class that is identical in every way to the first? What's the point? Why not just recognize the marriages of gays and lesbians as valid?

You've said yourself that gays and lesbians don't want equal rights but social acceptance. Would access to marriage provide them with social acceptance that access to civil unions wouldn't? If so, why?

I said 'societal' acceptance, not 'social' acceptance. its not the same thing.

Huh. Not even an attempt to answer the question. You know you've only delayed the inevitable. Lets try again:

You've said yourself that gays and lesbians don't want equal rights but 'societal' acceptance. Would access to marriage provide them with societal acceptance that access to civil unions wouldn't? If so, why?

And of course, you've still never given us a single reason to bother with civil unions when marriage works just as well, is far simpler, and doesn't require your historically inept 'separate but equal' scheme. Care to take a shot now?

Why would we bother with the distinction between civil unions and marriage if they are identical?

I have explained it in detail numerous times. If you are too thick headed to comprehend, then there is nothing I can do for you.

No, you've never answered my question. You've corrected the word I used in asking it. You've insulted me personally. But you've never actually answered it:

You've said yourself that gays and lesbians don't want equal rights but 'societal' acceptance. Would access to marriage provide them with societal acceptance that access to civil unions wouldn't? If so, why?

Now, for you. Why does the word matter so much to you? Here's your answer, government mandated societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.

So extending marriage to homosexuals would provide them with societal acceptance where civil unions wouldn't?

This is your argument. I'm simply asking you to clarify.

And why do I care? Because marriage is itself a fundamental right. If you deny them the right to marry, you're denying them a fundamental right.

But to recap:

Marriage = a union of one man and one woman

civil union = a union of two men or two women

Rights = exactly the same for both. EXACTLY THE SAME.

I'm asking what's the point? Why not allow gays and lesbians to be married? Its clearly not about the rights. So far you've cited tradition; Since gays and lesbians have traditionally been stripped of a fundamental right, we shouldn't allow to have it now. But why? What part of the requirements of marriage can gays and lesbians not meet? So far, you haven't been able to name a single one.

And discrimination because we've discriminated isn't a good reason.

And another thing you're missing....is that marriage itself is a fundamental right. You can't claim that straights and gays have the same right when you're actively denying gays a right: the right to marry. Especially when you have no reason for denying them than that you've already denied them. Its a circular argument: you're discriminating for no other reason than you've discriminated.

 

[Plasmaball]

The 14th doesn't extend to sexual behaviors. No matter how much they want the world to suspend judgment and think of them as "a minority race". For they are not. And making this crucial error in premise is going to be the downfall of the gay-cult argument in Court.

I really don't see what "sexual behaviors" has to do with this.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; "

Is marriage a right or is it a privilege? Either way, gay people are citizens, ans as such the privilege, if it is one and not a right, shall not be abridged.

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

liberty definition of liberty in Oxford dictionary American English US

"1) The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views:

1.1) (usually liberties) An instance of this; a right or privilege, especially a statutory one:the Bill of Rights was intended to secure basic civil liberties"

So an individual, regardless of sexual orientation, but just merely because they are a citizen of the USA, cannot be deprived of liberty. Now, liberty is basically being able to do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt others, in essence liberty is human rights, and may also include privileges too.

So, how can the states deny someone their liberty, without due process of the law? The answer is they shouldn't be able to.

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Equal protection of the laws means that when they make a law, ALL CITIZENS should be protected equally, or have the same privileges or rights.
Clearly this isn't the case.

I'm not sure which bit of this doesn't cover gay people......

Then by your logic, the privelege of driving may not be denied to the blind.

Priveleges are conditional. Rights are not. Gays have neither the right nor the access to the privelege of marriage because they refuse to abide by its constructs defined by the majority: man/woman husband/wife father/mother. We set up those parameters because we as a majority decided that children do best in that description. Children's rights trump all. So we consider them first, gays, polygamists, incest pairings come second to children's civil rights.

Blind people can take taxis, but they cannot legally qualify to drive. A blind person driving can be predicted to harm other people. Gay people marrying can be predicted to harm children, given their cultural mores on display at a gay pride parade near you.

Sorry.

neat! this doesnt hold up as a legit argument.

Its as legit as yours and wytch's. Are we allowed to have different opinions and beliefs in the Libtardian States of America? Or are our thoughts and beliefs to be dictated by the all-knowing federal government?

THAT is what this is really about.

you can have whatever opinion you like little guy, that doesn't make it legit or very good when it comes to actual law.

Since there is no federal law on this topic, your post just verifies your ignorance.

so....we are talking about state laws..

 

[frigidweirdo]

"Marriage is a fundamental right"

It's just a tag, a continuance of the natural order of procreation and nature. Queers can't procreate, therefore their trying to equate themselves with pairings that do, is sick, it's mental illness. "Marriage" transcends vapid human attempts at definition. We were just discussing barn owl "divorce" at Natgeo awhile back. Barn owls mate for life, as do ravens, crows, jays, coyotes, and a thousand other species of bird and mammal. One male and one female mate for life. It's the natural order of things.

Queers want us to believe that they're the natural order of things. They want to browbeat society into being as mentally ill as they are. Mostly though, they want to get their hands on little kids. That's how sick and dangerous the "queer marriage" agenda is. Queers want the great responsibility of raising and nurturing children? What a sick joke. There's only one reason a queer wants to get a little boy under his roof.

It's funny that two arguments against gay marriage are A) gay people can't procreate and B) that it's in the interests of the children.

Er..... which one is it? It can't be bother, surely.

As for, "it's a mental illness", prove it. But then again are people with mental illnesses stopped from marrying? Some are, MOST aren't, seeing as they say about 1/4 of people have some kind of mental illness, and I don't see a test to be taken before marriage based on mental illness.

But then the fact you use the term "queers" shows that your prejudice is to the point where you won't change, but the US is changing. Most people don't think like you, most people don't care if gay people are teachers, most people don't care whether a gay person marries or not, most people like to allow others to get on with their lives and try and be happy, but no, you want to watch them in bed and make sure they're not doing anything without your consent, right? Pervert.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Listen to these borg. Why don't you take your argument to Iran for awhile. I'm tired of listening to creeps babble about their "right" to molest little kids.

Marriage = molesting little kids huh? You're off your head.

 

[Skylar]

It's funny that two arguments against gay marriage are A) gay people can't procreate and B) that it's in the interests of the children.

Er..... which one is it? It can't be bother, surely.

You know, that's a great point.

 

[frigidweirdo]

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do these people who do these acts in public, sober, as a matter of pride, hoping kids will be looking on, qualify to adopt? No, of course not. And so, in Utah, they don't qualify to marry therefore.


This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.

"these people"??

You're basically saying that because some people go out and do this, that other gay people, who don't do this, can't adopt because of what others are doing.

I bet you say guns shouldn't be taken away because of the minority of gun owners who abuse their guns though......

So you have to be able to adopt to be able to get married? Do they have a test for straight people to see whether they're sensible enough to adopt? Hell no they don't, they allow them to ef away and have kids and mess them up all on their own.